Austrian Police Seize Computers From Tor Exit Node

from the how-long-will-this-take-to-explain dept

Javier points us to the news that the police in Austria have seized a bunch of computer equipment from the home of someone running a tor exit node. The email is not entirely clear, but it sounds like someone used tor -- via that exit node -- to access a porn site. Seeing as the equipment was seized, I'm assuming that this wasn't just a standard porn site. It seems like this is a risk that many people running tor exit nodes may face -- but the big question is how difficult is it to explain to the police what tor is, what an exit node is, why such things are perfectly legal, and why this means they're looking in the wrong place? Or will law enforcement just avoid all these details and assume that running a tor exit node is proof of guilt?

Re: Re: Re:

Do understand the statement you post? Anonymity requires lack of identification. If the user is identified it is no longer anonymous. That means that all anonymous traffic must be monitored to reveal the identity of the user.

Re: Re: Re:

You do get that unless anonymity is protected then there is no anonymity at all right?

No one other than you is arguing that bad things are good and worthwhile things.
What they are saying is that many good and worthwhile things will be cramped, even destroyed altogether in the pretence of ensuring that bad things never ever happen in the digital space.

Re: Re: Re:

So, sneakernet needs to be made illegal. The postal service, package delivery companies, Sidewalks, streets, fertilizer... I could go on forever. Don't blame the tool, blame the person using it illegally.

Remember, every time you justify punishing an innocent person, you justify letting a guilty person walk free (and are one step closer to that innocent being you).

Re:

I'm sure they'll be arresting all the other internet infrastructure owners shortly. Since the internet certainly allows some people to find kiddie porn, all of the internet infrastructure should be seized too, right?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Tor is the future of piracy!

Tor was never meant to be a safe haven. Tor was never meant for complete anonymity. You can still be traced, tracked and found through Tor. Tor was the first "We won't really explain how it works hoping people will not understand", like Cloud now is. It's propaganda BS designed to lull you away from the idea of sending data going through unidentified third parties. Tor is not the holy grail everyone makes it to be; far from. Tor has been here for a while but never really gained in popularity. Why not?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tor is the future of piracy!

Tor was the first "We won't really explain how it works hoping people will not understand", like Cloud now is.

Umm, no. You don't know what you're talking about. The people who developed TOR described exactly how it worked. In detail. They also pointed out various weaknesses. They weren't try to pull the wool over anybody's eyes.

Re: Re: Tor is the future of piracy!

Tor can be used for good, anonymous reasons. Whistle-blowing. Dissent. Preserving privacy in the case, say, of HIV testing. All true. Unfortunately, Tor can ALSO be used for illegal purposes. Specifically, and apparently in this case, child porn.

The problem is this: You run a Tor exit node, and someone uses it to request child porn. As such, that request appears to originate from your IP address. The police hit your house, take your equipment, and maybe even arrest you to boot.

You imply that this is bad, and it is. But you can't give anyone who runs a Tor exit node a free pass. What if -- just as an example -- you jump on your Tor server and start visiting child porn sites.

The police knock on your door, and you now innocently point to your Tor server and claim that some other "anonymous" person made the request through your machine. You're innocent.

Bingo. You've got your instant Tor "get out of jail free" card.

It's not that far-feteched. Remember the rulings and convictions given to "journalists" who were just "researching" child porn for an article or study? Same principe applies.

As long as some people misuse the system, the people who support the system are endangered.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tor is the future of piracy!

Please. An IP address, coupled with a timestamp, point to the location that was assigned that particular address at that particular point in time.

No, it doesn't even necessarily do that (I suppose you've never heard of wireless?). It *may* indicate an entity to which an IP address was assigned, but that's usually about it. Don't assume it means more than it does.

Now, for the sake of this argument, let's assume that location is your house. The police have followed the trail to your front door... and smashed it in. Now what?

And shot you, your wife, and dog because of the *possibility* that you might try to defend yourself. You left that part out.

And it's ALSO possible... if not probable... that it was you all along. So the police seize the equipment found at that location and turn it over to forensics.

As to *possibilities*, there are many. It's possible for anyone with access to any router along the way to use the address. This includes people at the ISP, backbone providers, hosting companies, etc. I personally have access to such routers and, if I wanted to, I could easily spoof traffic. If the police are going to bust doors down and seize equipment based on *possibilities*, they should go after those as well.

What else *could* they do?

I just told you, they could go after everyone in the chain. What do you say about that? Or they could realize that going after *possibilities* doesn't justify such behavior.

And no, the problem is not the police.

So it's not a problem for police kick to kick in the doors of innocent people and take their property based on nothing more than a *possibility*? I disagree.

The problem is that someone hijacked a system designed for one thing and twisted it to their own ends. Blame them, not the cops.

I blame both. Sorry, I just don't worship cops run amok. And I wonder if this doesn't maybe have less to do with child pornography and more to do with the cops wanting to make an example out of someone running a Tor exit node and finding an excuse to do so.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tor is the future of piracy!

No, it doesn't even necessarily do that (I suppose you've never heard of wireless?). It *may* indicate an entity to which an IP address was assigned, but that's usually about it. Don't assume it means more than it does.

Time to brush up on technology huh? You can be easily identified, even through wireless. It's called logging and MAC addresses. All your wireless APs will log the MAC address and at which time it assigned you an IP. Find the hardware, find the culprit. Simple as that. Nothing magical here. Unless you start spoofing your MAC (which no one ever does except more tech savvy people trying to hack the wireless), then you can get caught.

The moral of the story is: you run a tor exit node, you are responsible for the traffic. You try to help people do illegal things anonymously (because let's face it, 2/3 of it is for illegal stuff otherwise why hide at all?). It's the same for "open" VPNs. You offer them for free (or a small free). You own the service. You rent it. You are responsible for traffic going through it.

Then you get caught and start crying. Boo hoo. I'm sure if you go to your ISP's website and read their AUP and TOS, they WILL tell you that you're responsible for 100% of traffic going to your IPs. There you have it. They won't police yo, but if they have complaints about it, they will act on it.

None of which gives your "location", as you claimed. WiFi *can* reach many miles. My own WiFi signal covers several street addresses. To put it in simple terms for you, it could be in use at any of them. Is that so hard to understand? So which door should the cops kick in? Now, please, stop making stuff up.

The moral of the story is: you run a tor exit node, you are responsible for the traffic.

Says who? You? The guy who doesn't even understand networking?

You try to help people do illegal things anonymously (because let's face it, 2/3 of it is for illegal stuff otherwise why hide at all?).

Oh, there you go, pulling out the old, tired, "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you should have nothing to hide" line. That's been debunked so many times I'm not even going to wast my time with it.

Then you get caught and start crying. Boo hoo. I'm sure if you go to your ISP's website and read their AUP and TOS, they WILL tell you that you're responsible for 100% of traffic going to your IPs. There you have it.

I hate to break it to you, but AUP's and TOS's aren't laws. And there *you* have it. Boo hoo.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tor is the future of piracy!

Not really. I make living from this stuff everyday. I wouldn't hire you. Ever.

No, you can't. IP addresses (and even associated MAC addresses) don't identify people. It is the technically ignorant who believe otherwise. So people who designed networks are ignorant. The little troll on TD knows best.

It's called logging and MAC addresses... blah blah blah

None of which gives your "location", as you claimed. WiFi *can* reach many miles. My own WiFi signal covers several street addresses. To put it in simple terms for you, it could be in use at any of them. Is that so hard to understand? So which door should the cops kick in? Now, please, stop making stuff up..

Wait what? First, you tell him to stop making stuff, yet you blatantly lie in the same phrase. Your own signal? haha. Right. Either it's a corporate one (you couldn't afford it with your troll salary) or it's a plain and simple ignorant lie. And about location, it'll give you the location of the AP, who is, according to his CONTRACT SIGNED WITH THE ISP, responsible for the traffic.

Says who? You? The guy who doesn't even understand networking?Still assuming you're a simply idiotic troll with no IQ, read up your AUP and TOS. You'll probably need a lawyer to explain to you the big lines of the contract, and the legality of it all, because you obviously like to create your own interpretation of data.

Oh, there you go, pulling out the old, tired, "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you should have nothing to hide" line. That's been debunked so many times I'm not even going to wast my time with it. And now you put words in his mouth just so you could spout out that same tired argument. See it's not so hard to debunk other's ridiculous claims, especially when they're made by a troll that has nothing better to do.

Boohoo. Keep crying that you door gets knocked down because you're aiding pedophiles. You're the one that'll be locked up. In the end, your lack of IQ and your sheer stupidity will by your downfall. And we'll point and laugh.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tor is the future of piracy!

I wouldn't hire you. Ever.

Your loss.

So people who designed networks are ignorant.

You think so? Me thinks then that it is you who is showing his ignorance.

Wait what? First, you tell him to stop making stuff, yet you blatantly lie in the same phrase. Your own signal? haha. Right. Either it's a corporate one (you couldn't afford it with your troll salary) or it's a plain and simple ignorant lie.

Wow. Talk about lying, there you go...

Still assuming you're a simply idiotic troll with no IQ, read up your AUP and TOS. You'll probably need a lawyer to explain to you the big lines of the contract, and the legality of it all, because you obviously like to create your own interpretation of data. ...blah blah blah...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tor is the future of piracy!

And about location, it'll give you the location of the AP, who is, according to his CONTRACT SIGNED WITH THE ISP, responsible for the traffic.

Huh? Do you even know what an AP is (in network terms)? It's an "access point". That's a device, *not* a person (who). And you really believe that a device is "responsible"? Really? Well, I'll just let your ignorance speak for itself. Thanks.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tor is the future of piracy!

Huh. I spoof a new MAC address every boot-up, especially if I am connecting to a public hotspot. Just on general privacy principles. Yet if you follow what the super god-like technology engineer above stated, it's completely pointless. So why do it? Especially if you have nothing to hide? *sigh*

See how your argumentation works now. Not guilty if I use it,. not guilty if I don't. It's a really nice spin. I'm not against TOR or other anonymity networks/software/etc. However the arguments here are ridiculous. "Why use it if you have nothing to hide?" is a little tiresome. However, it works both ways. And no one is argumenting that. You're all (most of you) sold to the idea that we absolutely need anonymity, otherwise the universe will implode. There are consequences. And this was one.

Now why not leave the police a chance to investigate further? Why is everyone coming to astonishing conclusions?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tor is the future of piracy!

Re: Tor is the future of piracy!

If you don't mind enabling and being investigated for child porn!

I saw a photo of guy arrested for kiddy porn the other day and he was wearing glasses, obviously so that he could *see* the porn. Let's arrest the optometrists that enable these guys to see kiddy porn!

Re: Re: Re: Tor is the future of piracy!

Re: Tor is the future of piracy!

I've read rumors that the CIA uses Tor to phone home, plays an active role in it's development, and runs a few relays & exit nodes. If it works good for dissidents in China and Iran it should work good for spies. That isn't the law enforcement interest you're speaking of though is it?

Re:

Maybe there is a price to be paid for enabling diddlers and perverts to access kiddie porn. Just a thought. Free speech, free speech, rah, rah, rah!!!!

Did you really just suggest that anyone who enables a tool that has helped dissidents around the world stay safe need to "pay the price" of being accused of helping kiddie porn? You're a sick, sick individual.

Losing argument.

If you want to argue that the anonimity of a small number of foreign dissidents (there are only about 1000 Chinese users of Tor, for example) is more important than being able to enforce child porn laws, you are welcome to do so.

FYI, you will be slaughtered in the propaganda war when the time comes.

There is only one Internet issue I know that gets the average 40-70 year old voter riled up and ready for blood, and that is child porn.

Fortunately for you, you don't have much to worry about. Tor is not yet the target of any significant legal interest. Yet.

When that changes, and it will, I can guarantee which way public opinion will face. It won't be in favor of the pedophiles (or the 'political dissidents').

You need help...

Re: Losing argument.

If you want to argue that the anonimity of a small number of foreign dissidents (there are only about 1000 Chinese users of Tor, for example) is more important than being able to enforce child porn laws, you are welcome to do so.

There are more than that number of dissidents using Tor in the US alone and globally there are millions using it. Very few use it for child porn.

Re: Losing argument.

There is only one Internet issue I know that gets the average 40-70 year old voter riled up and ready for blood, and that is child porn.

Two errors.

1)

It really should have read
"There is only one Internet issue I know that can easily distract the vast majority of mouth breathers from anything really important and that is shouting child porn about anything you don't like."
Mouth breathers ears perk up, realise they don't like child porn, for some reason assume everyone else thinks it's just the business and prepares to behave irrationally about something they don't understand.

2) Actually there are lots of internet issues that get the mouthbreathers riled up, the only thing these issues have in common is that they are used to distract from important issues.

Re: Losing argument.

When that changes, and it will, I can guarantee which way public opinion will face. It won't be in favor of the pedophiles (or the 'political dissidents').

What the hell? Why would you even imply that favoring pedophiles is a direction public opinion could ever possibly go? Or that it's on the table, or anyone here is in favor of it? Come back when you're ready to make a real argument rather than attempting to smear privacy advocacy with the pedophilia label. We don't need that kind of dishonesty here.

Re: Re:

Because the ISP is just a relayer in the chain, not the person or machine sending or receiving the files.

Either the country in question doesn't recognize the idea of a common carrier, or the police failed to realize they were essentially dealing with one. You don't seize an AT&T backbone server because someone downloaded kiddy porn through it. You don't seize a TOR exit node for the same reason.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

To be fair, a backbone is not also a workstation that someone might use to download kiddy porn, while a Tor exit node is (if I understand it correctly).

To be fair, a backbone is basically composed of specialized computers with network connections between them (usually high speed). Not only can those computers be used to access and download material, they can spoof just about any address in their domain, making them virtually untraceable.

Perhaps you should refrain from making statements about things you don't understand.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You're saying somebody would sit down at a backbone server, fire up a web browser, and surf some porn?

I'm saying that someone *could*. I not pointing the finger at anyone in particular and saying that they *would*. And your education is not my responsibility.

I'm going to need a citation on that, because I'm very skeptical of that claim.

What you *need* is to quit popping off about stuff you obviously don't know about. If you want to know the details of network communications, there are plenty of schools you can go enroll in, but your education is not my responsibility.

Re:

Re: Re:

From urbandictionary.com:

1. diddler 157 up, 40 down

"One who thinks sexually unlawful things about children. Derived from "kiddy diddler". One doesn't actually have to touch a child to be a diddler. Anyone who promotes, is involved in, or looks at child pornography, can be considered a diddler."

Re:

You know, those of who actually investigate kiddie porn sites think you're an idiot.

The people involved in this are far, FAR more clever and secretive than you think they are. The experienced ones aren't going to get caught by the police in any country, because they're far more intelligent and technically sophisticated than the police. They may get caught by people like me, because my expertise is superior to theirs; but that means very little as I'm NOT the police and have authority to do anything to them.

They're not going to impeded (or caught) by seizure of a Tor node, nor by seizure of a thousand of them. That's because they're using YOUR computer, if you are one of the 200 million or so people out there who no longer have effective control of their own hardware. So when YOUR door gets kicked down and YOU get busted for the kiddie porn on YOUR computer, you can lead the cheers for wildly-enthusiastic, but utterly clueless and hopelessly inept police actions like the one in this story.

Answer:

"...but the big question is how difficult is it to explain to the police what tor is, what an exit node is, why such things are perfectly legal, and why this means they're looking in the wrong place?"

They don't care. If you can be persecuted, er, I mean prosecuted and it will appear to be a victory for the "good" guys to the ignorant masses, then it's a win for the "good" guys regardless of the reality of the situation.

Re: Answer:

Persecution is the word for this. I know that some people dislike pedosexuality, but the fact is that it is a normal sexuality like any other (that doesn't involve drugging or physically forcing someone into sex) and it's simply time to legalize it and bring it out into the open.

I saw this SAME EXACT BULLCRAP, as did my uncle who is 40 years older than me, with blacks having sex with whites, homosexuality and heterosexuality outside of marriage at one time.

It's just an attempt to create a boogie man to gull the masses into supporting politicians and others who are 'hard on deviants' (of which there is really no such thing).

Re: Re: Re: Answer:

You want to play that card? LEgally speaking, in the UK, a 16-year-old who has consensual sex with a 14-year-old is a paedophile. So you want to tar those people with the same as serial paedosexual rapists?

From The Diddlers-And-Perverts Department

Great to see such a strong showing from the pedophilia apologists here on Techdirtbag. Not surprising that they're an important and vibrant constituency here Masnick. Yes, it's quite a group of supporters you have assembled here, Mike. Sickening perverts who describe adult sexual exploitation as "normal sexuality" and advocates that it should be legalized. I note that Chris is an insider too!! Wow, Masnick maybe you should have your blog linked to the NAMBLA website, unless it already is.

hahahaha. Just when I thought you Techdirtbags couldn't be any slimier you hand me this gift.

Re: From The Diddlers-And-Perverts Department

Great to see such a strong showing from the pedophilia apologists here on Techdirtbag. Great to see such a strong showing from the pedophilia apologists here on Techdirtbag. Not surprising that they're an important and vibrant constituency here Masnick. Yes, it's quite a group of supporters you have assembled here, Mike. Sickening perverts who describe adult sexual exploitation as "normal sexuality" and advocates that it should be legalized. I note that Chris is an insider too!! Wow, Masnick maybe you should have your blog linked to the NAMBLA website, unless it already is.

Your level of desperation is telling. Because one idiot posts in support of such things it's a "showing." Hell, we've got more folks posting from your position of industry apologist/protectionist. Does that mean we support your position?

Re: Re: From The Diddlers-And-Perverts Department

oops, you're right, not an insider. Damn, what next: posting a list of Senators supporting a bill who are no longer in office?

BTW I don't see any so-called "copyright maximalists" advocate for sexual relations between adults and children. That position seems to be the exclusive property of the anti-IP/free speech extremists here on Techdirtbag. What's even more shameful is the sickening demonstration of tolerance on your blog for that sort of vile conduct.

Re: Re: Re: From The Diddlers-And-Perverts Department

oops, you're right, not an insider

Facts aren't your strong suit, are they?

BTW I don't see any so-called "copyright maximalists" advocate for sexual relations between adults and children.

Nor do we see copyright minimalists. Why associate two things that have no such association? If you want to bet that there are pedophiles who are also copyright maximalists, I'm sure such things exist. But would we make a blanket statement connecting the two? Of course not.

Why would you?

That position seems to be the exclusive property of the anti-IP/free speech extremists here on Techdirtbag

Only if you're too stupid to recognize that on the open internet people can say what they want.

What's even more shameful is the sickening demonstration of tolerance on your blog for that sort of vile conduct

Oh grow up. We allow open comments, and what happened? Within about 10 minutes of that comment getting posted, it was reported and downgraded.

Of course, you and your friends never see such comments, because on your sites *you don't allow open comments*. We don't "tolerate" such comments. We find them equally sickening and have said so many times in the past.

Re: From The Diddlers-And-Perverts Department

I have no intention of getting into an age of consent argument, but I do want to give you a warning.

Since you're so gung-ho about painting everyone with the same wide brush, you may want to watch what you paint. You're actively associating with said group; if you get your way, you will be up on the chopping block for association.

Remember the "Red Scare"? Remember what the US did with Japanese citizens during WWII? It happened before, it's not a stretch for it to happen again. We fight to prevent that, and we will fight to protect even you against that. So just remember who your lumping in with the National Association of Marlon Brando Look-A-likes.

Re: Re: Answer:

Re: Re: Answer:

You've got to be kidding me. 'Pedo' sexuality is a form of deviance, and it puts children at risk.

All children deserve their innocence , and deserve to be defended from malicious predators.

While I understand that some people are 'born' with deviant sexual natures, there is NOTHING that forces someone to download images of children being abused. This is a disgusting choice.

Pedophilia should absolutely remain illegal, despite attempts by the elite to 'normalize' it.

We should always strive to protect our children from abuse in any just and righteous society. Cloaking child exploitation in the vague language of 'human rights' doesn't change the facts... that any pedophile that acts on his impulses is contributing to the abuse and exploitation of children.

Pedophilia is morally wrong and disgusting and no amount of politically correct nonsense will change that fact.

A Valid Concern

That was my reason for not setting up my high bandwidth computer as a Tor exit node. I would probably beat any charge in court, but it would be expensive and could screw up my security clearance (and by association, my job).

Re: A Valid Concern

That was my reason for not setting up my high bandwidth computer as a Tor exit node. I would probably beat any charge in court, but it would be expensive and could screw up my security clearance (and by association, my job).

Fear and chilling effects. I'm sure that those who would take away freedom appreciate your compliance. You set a fine example.

The fact is that the police need to realize that exit node /= to a specific person, and the exit node isn't going to help much if they are trying to get someone for trading 'child pornography' (which honestly I have no problem with and think it should be legal, same with pedosexuality in general).

Re:

Re:

Christopher, since no one has yet attempted to say this to you directly yet....please figure out the quickest way to acquire the most lethal form of cancer and take a dirt nap.

Anyone who could make such blanketly idiotic statements like saying pedosexuality should be legal and that they have no problem with child pornography is someone so devoid of any normalcy as to be unuseful here.

So, go away. Permanently. And I'll be here to shout down every single one of your disgusting pro-child-sex posts, you creepy dung heap....

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Hmm, I do wonder sometimes, considering the venom that goes around whenever the subject is brought up, how many of you fellows have done some serious reading on pedophilia? Wikipedia has a decent article to start, might want to also read up on human sexuality in general too (Check for sources though). Doing so could help some of you come up with something more constructive and quite possibly, convincing than "Contract cancer and die!" (Well, helmet, your version is more eloquent I'd have to say) Writing someone off like that will only serve to worsen the problem, par the course I guess...

If you're interested, my stance on the subject is, generally, until someone acts physically on his or her urges, there really is no problem. (Psychologically/physically damaging/hurting a person in the process. This, for me, includes "real" images and such, though not those drawn/written or otherwise devised from the realm of "Fantasy") What someone does with their imagination is of no consequence to me, even if it makes me want to puke. If it is of consequence to you, than well, why?

Also, sick individual? More likely uninformed, misguided, ignorant... Not sick. This could also be said for the one saying he's sick, then again, it's not like any one of us has an omni-potent intellect... Sorry, generalizing too much.

Re: Re: Re:

If you're interested, my stance on the subject is, generally, until someone acts physically on his or her urges, there really is no problem... What someone does with their imagination is of no consequence to me, even if it makes me want to puke.

I don't think anyone's objecting to anyone's fantasy. The "venom" is reserved for actual children being mistreated.

Re: Re: Re:

Pedophilia is the only topic where presumption of innocence is turned upside down. Call me a pedophile even without any proof, and it takes lot off effort to wash off this dirt off my name.

And indeed part of the problem that people tend to mix mental malady of being aroused with children and enabling abuse by consuming child pornography. The latter deserves punishment and/or and treatment, the former - mercy and tolerance.

There is a third class derived from intolerant and cruel laws. For example, me and my girl were in love since we were 16. I'm 2 month older than her. There was a 2-month period when I was a pedophile, then I suddenly became normal.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

For example, me and my girl were in love since we were 16. I'm 2 month older than her. There was a 2-month period when I was a pedophile, then I suddenly became normal.

Most jurisdictions require one party to be underage and the other to be both over the age of consent and also more than a certain amount older than the other party (such as two years older) for statutory rape.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Most jurisdictions require one party to be underage and the other to be both over the age of consent and also more than a certain amount older than the other party (such as two years older) for statutory rape.

Re:

I voted you insightful.

The solution is insightful because catching the toll booth operator is much easier than catching the terrorist speeding away. It is cost efficient. Saves tax dollars. Allows law enforcement to get back to whatever they were doing before being rudely interrupted by a terrorist.

I wonder if they bothered to go after the site hosting the material, or is that just too much work.

Nearly every report I see about child porn they are confiscating equipment and arresting some individual person for getting/having the material. I never see 'child porn production facility shut down when police...'.

Almost makes a person think they don't care about the kids, but just want to have an easy target that can generate headlines.

Re:

Nearly every report I see about child porn they are confiscating equipment and arresting some individual person for getting/having the material. I never see 'child porn production facility shut down when police...'.

From what I've read, the police operate a lot of the child pron sites themselves as stings. Should they arrest themselves?

Re:

I expect guilty until proven innocent.

You're an optimist. The opportunity to prove innocence is already gone as far as the court of public opinion is concerned. Once accused of breaking child porn laws, you will forever be haunted by that accusation no matter how innocent you can prove yourself to be. Look up Sean Lanigan some time.

Re:

As a believer in strong copyright, it fills my heart with gladness to see these kiddie porn pirates prosecuted. Only the original creator of kiddie porn should have the legal right to distribute their content. As we've said all along, if content is allowed to be stolen for free on the internet, creators will have no incentive to create more content! Kiddie porn is no exception.

A strong respect for copyright demands strong protection for kiddie porn creators. The two are inextricably linked.

Re:

Re:

"As we've said all along, if content is allowed to be stolen for free on the internet, creators will have no incentive to create more content! Kiddie porn is no exception."

Holy crap, that actually makes sense! So those who argue that new content will not be created without copyright must concede that we could put an end to this kind of horrible exploitation just by allowing the existing material to be copied and distributed freely!

(Note: what I have written is a logical statement; please do not take me to task for it unless you can think about this topic in logical terms and criticize my logic accordingly. I have no desire engage in religious bickering or its mental equivalents.)

Re: Re:

Well, I think the rebuttal is clear: your logic solves half of the problem but exacerbates the other half. Stopping the production of child porn is, certainly, the number one priority - but keeping it out of circulation and getting the people who seek it the help they need is a very close second.

Re: Re: Re:

How does suppressing the material provide people with the help they need? And if they get that help, surely the circulation with dry up for lack of demand, so why worry about the material itself (apart from visceral revulsion at the idea that it's out there)?

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Well, when it comes to many forms of addiction (in both psychological and physical terms) controlling availability is a valid and usually important part of any strategy. For example, many cities would benefit hugely from opening more rehabilitation and support centres for meth and heroin addicts, but not if they let the drugs flow freely at the same time.

Obviously child porn is different - cutting off the creation of new drugs would eliminate them from circulation as well - but what I'm drawing from this is that making something widely available is not a good way to combat it. Though I guess am straying slightly from logic when I say that my gut tells me any strategy that starts with "allow child porn to be traded freely" is not a good one...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Between following my gut and sanctioning the free exchange of child pornography?

Not so tough.

Besides, if the goal is to eliminate production and consumption of child pornography, and you are asserting that this is accomplished by legalizing the exchange and possession of child pornography, then I think the burden of walking through the logic falls on you...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Reason is rarely rock-solid in a chaotic system full of variables we don't understand and can't measure - like say the human brain, or the sociological landscape of modern western civilization. I am a firm adherent to reason and empiricism, and part of that means knowing how to recognize and admit it when you don't have enough information to draw firm conclusions. This is why social science is a liberal art...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Fuzzy thinking. First, I am unconvinced that addiction is a useful model for pedophilia. Second, there is a world of difference between an addict deprived and an addict abstaining. Third, rehabilitation/support is valuable even when something is freely available, as we see with alcohol. Fourth, there is an important difference between abusing a child and merely handling records (or fictional depictions) of such acts, which we lose sight of if we use phrases like "combat it" carelessly.

And there's plenty of stuff for sale that turns my stomach, but I've learned to live with it-- astrology, Japanese pop music, celebrity gossip mags... I wish there were no demand for such garbage, but I must not let my gut lead my brain into faulty reasoning.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The alcohol point is a good one. And yes, I should clarify that I am talking about actual sexual depictions of real children - not some of the things that lie around the fringe like stories or artwork (I have heard the arguments that allowing and even encouraging fantasies of this nature can actually alleviate the urge - and I think there is a lot to consider there. But that's a separate discussion.)

So if we are talking about the records of such acts as you put it, the core question is threefold: 1) would making the existing pornography freely available eliminate the production of more? and 2) what other ramifications would this have? (are we sure it would reduce instances of actual sexual abuse?) and 3) where are we drawing the purely moral line?

See, that's the thing - despite your desire to stick to logic, this is a moral question, because it is a moral decision in the first place to say that producing child pornography, or even sex with children, is wrong (many people throughout history and today have taken the firm moral stance that it isn't, though I wouldn't like to meet any of them). So since we are all agreeing that the sexual abuse of children is wrong, can we not also say that allowing anyone people to sexually indulge in depictions of it is wrong too? It bears some similarity to arguments over the use of medical discoveries made by Nazi doctors - an emotionally heated topic to be sure - but with other big differences too.

But still, while "what's done is done?" is a pretty rock-solid logical statement, you could take this to a whole new level by considering the logic of a society's moral standards and the psychological role they play with, ultimately, real and measurable impacts. I dunno, it's a big topic, and my main point is that I don't think the logic is quite as clear-cut as you make it out to be (elementary logic is a handy tool when you want to get right to the point while missing a million other points)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

To recap, we can agree that 1) relying entirely on logic -- or going clean against it -- is dumb, 2) we're talking about actual recordings of real child molestation (and those who broaden the definition are just clouding the issue), 3) child molestation is super bad, and should not be permitted, and 4) nobody's yet presented solid evidence about what suppression of porn does to rates of child abuse either way, but it's safe to say that total liberalization or annihilation of one would NOT lead to the complete cessation of the other.

"So since we are all agreeing that the sexual abuse of children is wrong, can we not also say that allowing anyone... to sexually indulge in depictions of it is wrong too?"

No. It's nasty, but it harms no one and thoughts are free (I feel very strongly about that). War is horrible, but if my neighbors get worked up into patriotic/xenophobic zeal watching archival footage of the carnage at Midway... well, it's troubling, but ultimately not my business.

(The only possible rebuttal I can see is that consumption might create a market, which could drive production, sort of like the ivory trade. I have no idea if this is how it works and I don't think solid evidence exists.)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

No. It's nasty, but it harms no one and thoughts are free (I feel very strongly about that)

I would agree if I felt it was sure that it harms no-one - but I think it is worth considering that the availability of child pornography encourages more actual acts of child molestation. The opposite could also be true. Or, more subtly, you could consider the ripple affects on a society where child pornography is permitted - on its child-rearing methods, its concept of innocence, its inclination towards domination or violence, and the general pride of its citizenry in their own "standards". Though not entirely tangible, these are all very real things that I think play into the logic of it all beyond the simple presence or absence of direct harm caused by child pornography.

In any case, I've thoroughly enjoyed this discussion - rationally exploring different facets of a topic by defining its elements, then carefully building consensus where possible, is a damn luxury in a comment thread with Buck Lateral :D

Re: Re: Re:

Well, I think the rebuttal is clear: your logic solves half of the problem but exacerbates the other half. Stopping the production of child porn is, certainly, the number one priority - but keeping it out of circulation and getting the people who seek it the help they need is a very close second.

According to copyright maximalist theorey, it would cease to exist without copyright protection. How would it be in circulation if it ceased to exist?

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Let's be fair; copyright maximalists say that new material will not come into being without protection, not that existing material will vanish if it is freely copied (although they seem to wish that it would).

From The Techdirtbag-Censorship-Department

Yikes, You have censored the your anti-IP/free speech ally, Christopher's nauseating advocacy on behalf of adult-child sexual relations. I guess there really are limits on free speech after all, even here amongst the Techdirtbags. Bravo!! But too late.

Re: From The Techdirtbag-Censorship-Department

If you don't know the difference between censorship and people reporting a comment such that it hides as a default but is still readable, then I think Christopher might need to share his cancer-acquiring device with you....

Re: From The Techdirtbag-Censorship-Department

Yikes, You have censored the your anti-IP/free speech ally, Christopher's nauseating advocacy on behalf of adult-child sexual relations. I guess there really are limits on free speech after all, even here amongst the Techdirtbags. Bravo!! But too late

Based on your own logic above, Buck, you've now admitted that you support pedophilia. After all, you now appear to be advocating that no one complain about his speech.

Of course, most of us are smarter than you, and recognize there's a difference between "censorship" and reporting a comment as inappropriate. Yet, if we follow your own logic, it appears that the only person here, besides the sick individual Christopher himself, who is supporting pedophilia, it's you. After all, you claimed that merely supporting his right to speech, we're obviously supporting his views. Yet, here you are supporting his right not even to speak, but not to have his comments downgraded by the community. Thus, by *your own logic* you appear to be the only person here supporting Christopher's claims.

Of course, that's ridiculous, but I'm just demonstrating the inanity of your own arguments.

Buck, some of us would really enjoy it if someone with your views wanted to have a real discussion on these topics. Your desire to shit all over a forum where people are having a serious discussion on the best way to help creativity and society says an awful lot about you and the people who pay you to spew such bullshit. If you'd like to discuss serious issues seriously, we're happy to have those discussions here. Until then, we have to declare you a sick individual who would stoop so low as to associate a pedophile with totally unrelated views because you know you have no legitimate argument.

Re: Re: From The Techdirtbag-Censorship-Department

Jesus Masnick, there are medications that can help you. Please look into it.

"Yikes, You have censored the your anti-IP/free speech ally, Christopher's nauseating advocacy on behalf of adult-child sexual relations. I guess there really are limits on free speech after all, even here amongst the Techdirtbags. Bravo!! But too late"

"Based on your own logic above, Buck, you've now admitted that you support pedophilia. After all, you now appear to be advocating that no one complain about his speech."

Read carefully dipshit. I congratulated Techdirtbag for censoring the free speech of the pervert Christopher. Then you "cleverly" distort that into supporting pedophilia.

"Of course, most of us are smarter than you, and recognize there's a difference between "censorship" and reporting a comment as inappropriate. Yet, if we follow your own logic, it appears that the only person here, besides the sick individual Christopher himself, who is supporting pedophilia, it's you. After all, you claimed that merely supporting his right to speech, we're obviously supporting his views. Yet, here you are supporting his right not even to speak, but not to have his comments downgraded by the community. Thus, by *your own logic* you appear to be the only person here supporting Christopher's claims."

Yes, and there is a difference between censorship and cutting off ad support, payment processing, and DNS listing by US based search engines. Like Christopher's comments can still be read, a rogue website can still be located and monetized. And like Christopher's vile comments, it's now much less apparent and readily available to the public- just as it will be for rogue websites. I applaud what happened to Christopher and I'll be cheering what happens to certain rogue websites 5 minutes after President Obama's signature dries on Te PROTECT IP Act.

Of course, that's ridiculous, but I'm just demonstrating the inanity of your own arguments."

Thorazine may be the best place for you to start. Talk to your doctor... soon.

"Buck, some of us would really enjoy it if someone with your views wanted to have a real discussion on these topics. Your desire to shit all over a forum where people are having a serious discussion on the best way to help creativity and society says an awful lot about you and the people who pay you to spew such bullshit."

Masnick, between Chris-The-Diddler, Josh, who thinks the CIA is planting chips in people's brains and the many other dolts, morons, apologists and freeloaders- your characterization of this site engaging in serious discussion borders on fraud. This is an echo chamber of extremist zealotry. I'm happy to pop up now and then and drop the turd of reality in your punchbowl of koolaid. Give me a scholarly rebuttal of the constitutionality of the bill, not shrill, general denouncements of how it violates the 1st and 14th Amendments. Give me something that doesn't make me think you're just another feckless buffoon of a conspiracy theorist off on a copyright jihad.

"If you'd like to discuss serious issues seriously, we're happy to have those discussions here. Until then, we have to declare you a sick individual who would stoop so low as to associate a pedophile with totally unrelated views because you know you have no legitimate argument."

I think it's been made perfectly clear through the unwitting cooperation of Chris-The-Diddler that free speech is not an absolute right and censorship is appropriately used in given circumstances. Techdirtbag was absolutely right to censor this perverts shocking remarks and marginalize and obscure his comments behind a pale pink, barely visible notice. If it was up to me, his remarks would be deleted and he'd be banned from the site. But you're probably too soft for that.

Re: Re: Re: From The Techdirtbag-Censorship-Department

Read carefully dipshit. I congratulated Techdirtbag for censoring the free speech of the pervert Christopher. Then you "cleverly" distort that into supporting pedophilia.

Trolling 101: Be sarcastic. Then, when they interpret it as sarcasm, you can claim to have been speaking literally. Or, if they take you literally, you can roast them for not recognizing your sarcasm.

Yes, and there is a difference between censorship and cutting off ad support, payment processing, and DNS listing by US based search engines. Like Christopher's comments can still be read, a rogue website can still be located and monetized. And like Christopher's vile comments, it's now much less apparent and readily available to the public- just as it will be for rogue websites.

If the DHS domain seizures were simply a landing page that hid the content with a message of "This content has been deemed inappropriate and/or potentially infringing by the Department of Homeland Security, click here to see it anyway" then I personally would have less of a problem with it. Requiring a single click isn't anywhere near the same level of hiding something as the DHS seizures.

Re: Re: Re: Re: From The Techdirtbag-Censorship-Department

"Read carefully dipshit. I congratulated Techdirtbag for censoring the free speech of the pervert Christopher. Then you "cleverly" distort that into supporting pedophilia."

"Trolling 101: Be sarcastic. Then, when they interpret it as sarcasm, you can claim to have been speaking literally. Or, if they take you literally, you can roast them for not recognizing your sarcasm."

Thanks, I'll try to work that in some time.

"Yes, and there is a difference between censorship and cutting off ad support, payment processing, and DNS listing by US based search engines. Like Christopher's comments can still be read, a rogue website can still be located and monetized. And like Christopher's vile comments, it's now much less apparent and readily available to the public- just as it will be for rogue websites."

"If the DHS domain seizures were simply a landing page that hid the content with a message of "This content has been deemed inappropriate and/or potentially infringing by the Department of Homeland Security, click here to see it anyway" then I personally would have less of a problem with it. Requiring a single click isn't anywhere near the same level of hiding something as the DHS seizures."

Its a matter of degrees. Chris-The -Diddler's vile pro-child porn comments were a minor, local matter. The comments were hidden away behind a hard-to-recognize message. Personally, I would have deleted the comments and banned the pervert entirely. Rogue sites whether distributing infringing content, dispensing phony medication or counterfeit auto parts are a global problem with global reach. It's not just some sick fuck on an obscure blog.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From The Techdirtbag-Censorship-Department

Touche Marcus.

It's global in that the websites are outside the reach of US jurisprudence. And those stealing American content are likewise in countries all over the world. It's still US companies and US content we're talking about. Fortunately or unfortunately, nobody really steals Canadian content like they steal US content. If there is discussion of a law dealing with infringing on Canadian content (other than US content produced in Canada) I promise not to meddle in your affairs, OK?

Oh cut the shit. You know damn well that PROTECT IP has repercussions for Canada and for the whole world. You've admitted it yourself.

Am I so formidable a foe that you feel the need to disqualify me from the debate? I mean yeah, you're flailing around with your pathetic arguments, and it is getting pretty embarrassing so I can see why you want an exit strategy, but resorting too "Whatever, Canadian!" is kind of childish don't you think?

Re:

Let's not forget any YouTube Videos that have any sort of music playing in the background, including the family singing to grandma on her 90th or little Jimmy's first steps in front of the TV while an episode of The Backyardigans is on. And you can't have ever used any sort of online music streaming service like Seeqpod or Grooveshark, even if you only accessed authorized tracks with it. And you can't have ever posted or shared a link to any of these things either.

There should be reasonable limits on free speech, as has just been demonstrated here. Christopher's disgusting advocacy of child-adult sexual relations has disappeared behind a hidden, light pink notice. Not unlike the effect of the DNS blocking proposal of Protect IP, eh? Free speech is still alive and well after Christopher's censure/censor. Just as it will be when rogue sites are refused payment processing services, ad network support and DNS listing. I honestly don't think piracy apologists are child porn advocates, but this whole episode goes to show that the overheated rhetoric about free speech is way overblown.

Re:

There is a pretty significant difference. Christopher's comment was put behind that notice based on open voting by all the users. The DNS seizures and the Protect IP legislation permit almost no input from the public, and give near-discretionary power to private businesses with major conflicts of interest.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

No, this thread just has me in a bad mood, and now you idiots are trying to compare the entire U.S. legal system to a button on a blog. So fine, I'm sorry (p.s. I don't for a second believe that all five of the ACs responding to me here are actually different people)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Heh - what an odd thing to say. How would I possibly 'let you know'? You are a nameless coward who I am still pretty sure rotates his IP address to avoid being identified or held accountable for any of his past comments.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

Huh. I didn't vote. Can you vote to keep it or just disappear it? If not, isn't it like foisting a ballot with only one name on it and calling it a democratic election? Anyway, I don't see how that offers greater protection than the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In any event his disgusting advocacy has no place here and the world would be a better place without Christopher hiding behind the First Amendment to advance his perverted cause.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

This whole comparison of Techdirt's reporting system and federal law is a ridiculous canard.

This is the whole POINT of being against government censorship: believing that communities like Techdirt are capable of regulating what goes on within their communities by themselves, instead of relying on some central agency to determine what's okay and what's not.

Christopher being flagged is a perfect example of why government censorship isn't necessary.

Censorship is not the solution

There should be reasonable limits on free speech, as has just been demonstrated here.

I don't think so. Last time I checked there were no limits to free speech in either the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or in the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

From a philological point of view, setting ANY limit set on free expression is the top of a slippery slope ending in complete censorship. Once it has been accepted that anything that is said CAN be restricted from public discourse, then it is a fairly small step to anything that does not further the agenda of the ruling socio-economic group SHOULD be restricted. For examples please go look at China, Zimbabwe, and Saudi Arabia.

From a sociological point of view, denying someone the right to express an idea is the best way of convincing them that they are right. The best way of dealing with ideas of the quality brought forth by Christopher is not to censor his ideas nor to treat him like a pariah, it is to engage him in a discussion where the fallacies of his stance can be exposed and, hopefully, overturned.

The solution to inacceptable or taboo speech is not censorship... it is more speech.

PS: I'm a bit late to the fray, but I believe that this type of ideas need to be conteracted at every turn.

Marcus, it's a bit tiresome having to listen to foreigners prattle on about affairs that don't concern them. Instead of meddling, why not focus on the many problems of your own country?

In a representative democracy the community is represented by elected officials. They make laws. Law enforcement and the courts take it from there. Who do you think is better representative of the community that is the United States of America? Techdirt? Google?

Interestingly if Chris-The-Diddlers comments were subject to a judicial review instead of that of the Techdirtbags, his loathsome comments would still be here. Chris-The-Diddler's disgusting comments got less due process and free speech protection than the rogue websites would under the PROTECT IP Act. Let's face it, the reason that Chris-The-Diddler was dealt with harshly is because his free speech was extraordinarily offensive. Rogue sites give you free stuff that you'd otherwise have to pay for. Game, set, match.

Re: Re: Re:

I see, do as I say (shrilly I might add) not as I do. Got it.

So in order for private entities to criticize the government, they must first declare that there should be no difference between the private and public sectors? Interesting. You don't believe in the people regulating their government? That seems kind of un-American...

Re:

Marcus, it's a bit tiresome having to listen to foreigners prattle on about affairs that don't concern them. Instead of meddling, why not focus on the many problems of your own country?

As your nearest neighbour, closest ally and biggest trading partner, I have plenty of reason to be interested in what goes on in your country. If you still think in purely national terms, you have a small mind that is not suited to the modern era.

dealt with harshly

Hidden below a single-click viewing threshhold. Harsh!

I repeat: comparing a commonplace blog commenting mechanic like a report button to complex, sweeping legislation like PROTECT IP is ridiculous and you know it.

Re: Re:

"Marcus, it's a bit tiresome having to listen to foreigners prattle on about affairs that don't concern them. Instead of meddling, why not focus on the many problems of your own country?"

"As your nearest neighbour, closest ally and biggest trading partner, I have plenty of reason to be interested in what goes on in your country. If you still think in purely national terms, you have a small mind that is not suited to the modern era."

England's our closest ally. I doubt that there are a lot of Americans who jump into the middle of domestic policy debates of Canada and those who do should really just mind their own business.... as should you.

"dealt with harshly"

"Hidden below a single-click viewing threshhold. Harsh!"

Don't worry, you can still freeload using DNS work-arounds. It's going to be a bit harder after PROTECT IP with the rogue sites losing ad support and payment processing services.

"I repeat: comparing a commonplace blog commenting mechanic like a report button to complex, sweeping legislation like PROTECT IP is ridiculous and you know it."

Not really numbnuts. The effect is the same. Just a matter of degrees. Why don't you run along and download some American content while you still can and leave the domestic policy discussions to the people that actually live here.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Yeah seriously Marcus, what right have you to an opinion? Everyone knows that the people of one nation should never interfere with the affairs of another by, say, trying to convince them to adopt more draconian copyright laws. I doubt there are a lot of government officials attempting to influence policy decisions of other countries, but those who do should really just mind their own business.... seriously.

Oh, the contradictory positions of the shills. What was it he said, and apparently practices? Oh right, "I see, do as I say (shrilly I might add) not as I do. Got it."

Re:

"In a representative democracy the community is represented by elected officials. "

Are you going to start waving a flag now?

"They make laws."

Based on what parameters? That's a REAL important question.

" Law enforcement and the courts take it from there. Who do you think is better representative of the community that is the United States of America?"

It sure ain't our current crop of politicians, who represent special interests.

" Google? "

And the personal crusade continues...

"Interestingly if Chris-The-Diddlers comments were subject to a judicial review instead of that of the Techdirtbags, his loathsome comments would still be here."

... You can click on the text and see it. But people are forewarned. Please stop being childish...

"Chris-The-Diddler's disgusting comments got less due process and free speech protection than the rogue websites would under the PROTECT IP Act. "

I guess that was too much to ask.

"Chris-The-Diddler was dealt with harshly is because his free speech was extraordinarily offensive. Rogue sites give you free stuff that you'd otherwise have to pay for. "

FFS, this is the avenue you choose to use? Someone said something extraordinarily stupid and offensive. No police are coming to his door. The community has seen that taboo door opened and quickly DEALT WITH THE ISSUE.

I could go on, but I'm sure you'll do your fair share of more insults.

Anyway, the point is if you really want to deal with the problem, without government BS in the way, as a copyright holder, provide alternatives to piracy. Something you can never acknowledge because you've gone more and more into being some offensive shill than anything else. There's been plenty of research that proves you wrong. All the PIPA is going to do is upset people until its eventual repeal.

Re:

Marcus, it's a bit tiresome having to listen to foreigners prattle on about affairs that don't concern them. Instead of meddling, why not focus on the many problems of your own country?

I really had to laugh out loud at this. I thought PROTECT IP was about foreign websites.

/sarc
Damn, can't have them foreigners talking about issues that affect them. We're AMERICANS damnit! We know what's best for everyone! And that Internet thingy belongs to us, because....um......because WE ARE AMERICANS damnit!
/unsarc

England's our closest ally. I doubt that there are a lot of Americans who jump into the middle of domestic policy debates of Canada and those who do should really just mind their own business.... as should you.

You're right about England, officially - I was thinking of your leaked secret diplomatic cables where you kept calling us your closest ally, my mistake. And you can't deny all the other extremely strong ties between us, especially economic ones. So I really have to assume you are joking when you claim I have no reason to care about U.S. policy, and policy related directly to the global internet no less... joking or stupid.

(And yeah, fewer americans would pay attention to canada - we all know your country influences mine more than the other way around. Which is exactly why Canadians care nearly as much about American politics as we do about domestic politics. Unlike America we don't pretend we are the only country on earth.)

Re:

Marcus, I'll point out again that PROTECT IP will enable orders to US corporations to desist rendering service to foreign rogue sites. That's US payment processors, US ad networks, US search engines. This is necessary because of the lax laws in foreign countries failing to protect infringement on US copyrighted content. Note the common thread. The law cannot seize foreign based websites. They are free to continue to operate. They just can't access US corporate resources to enable their ventures. Got it.

For every time Masnick and others boo hoo about how this will "break the internet" there are ten guys who shrug and talk about easy it will be to work around. So enough with the moaning already.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

hahahhaha I just watched your God-awful composite poem set to music on vimeo. Now I get it. You're an embittered, failed, wannabe musician. And judging from that performance, you have no stake in copyright protection. That was priceless. At least your Mom and Dad clapped for you though, that was nice.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Actually I think it's just embarrassment. He thinks he's this bigshot fast-talker who can out-debate anyone, and he showed up here acting all cocky and superior, only to discover that the Techdirt community is actually a lot smarter and more perceptive than him. On the whole we've been making him look quite foolish, and now that he's accepted we're probably right about the topic at hand, he's trying to change the subject and mock us on unrelated grounds (I'm a Canadian! And I once delivered a shaky and unpracticed performance of a rather pretentious concept poem! OH THE SHAME!) so he doesn't have to admit his mistake

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Hey look everyone, Buck Lateral discovered Google! Maybe you aren't a lost cause in the modern world after all...

And I'm actually a happy designer/writer who occasionally makes music for a hobby and has never had any intention of making money with it. That particular performance was five old poems mashed together last minute over a piano piece written in about one hour, to fill an open timeslot in a friend's spoken word event. It was lots of fun, and by odd chance there turned out to be a bunch of neuroscientists in the audience, who really went nuts for all my references to the brain (they were the ones shouting)

Glad you got a kick out of it! I sure did. Afraid I don't have video of the next one - writing new songs and adding backup singers made it even more enjoyable, but the videographer was a super-emo poet/filmmaker who hated me and kept stalling on giving me the footage (oh man, you would have just HATED that guy - I kind of did too though, so we would have had something in common for once).

That's the thing, see: any art I create, I create for my own enjoyment and that of the people close to me and other artists I know. I can see why that would be a foreign concept to you, but you should try it some time.

"In a representative democracy the community is represented by elected officials. "

"Are you going to start waving a flag now?"

Does patriotism offend you? Odd. Maybe you should seek political asylum in Canada and room with Marcus.

"They make laws."

Based on what parameters? That's a REAL important question.

A bill hits the floor, it's debated, perhaps amended then voted on. In the case of PROTECT IP, there will be a vote for cloture.

" Law enforcement and the courts take it from there. Who do you think is better representative of the community that is the United States of America?"

"It sure ain't our current crop of politicians, who represent special interests."

Try voting instead of whining. Or maybe for comic relief you could run for office as the Pirate Party candidate. Those guys are such losers they'd probably even take you.

" Google? "

"And the personal crusade continues..."

Puppeteer for Public Knowledge, CDT, EFF, Ron Wyden and more. Alas, you have me dead-to-rights.

"Interestingly if Chris-The-Diddlers comments were subject to a judicial review instead of that of the Techdirtbags, his loathsome comments would still be here."

"... You can click on the text and see it. But people are forewarned. Please stop being childish..."

I see. Do as I say, not as I do. H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E. At least I say I oppose unfettered garbage masquerading as free speech. I hoped Masnick would delete the comments and ban him, but he's too soft.

"Chris-The-Diddler's disgusting comments got less due process and free speech protection than the rogue websites would under the PROTECT IP Act. "

"I guess that was too much to ask."

Sorry. Missed it.

"Chris-The-Diddler was dealt with harshly is because his free speech was extraordinarily offensive. Rogue sites give you free stuff that you'd otherwise have to pay for. "

"FFS, this is the avenue you choose to use? Someone said something extraordinarily stupid and offensive. No police are coming to his door. The community has seen that taboo door opened and quickly DEALT WITH THE ISSUE."

Just as the community of the United Sates of America will deal with the issue of rogue sites dedicated to disseminating infringing content through its judicial process.

I could go on, but I'm sure you'll do your fair share of more insults.

Anyway, the point is if you really want to deal with the problem, without government BS in the way, as a copyright holder, provide alternatives to piracy."

Granted, there could be a faster adaptation to alternative distribution. It's starting to catch up. I never considered my need to wait to see Hangover 2 as justification for stealing it. We are talking about entertainment aren't we? Not water, not food, not medicine. Entertainment,

"Something you can never acknowledge because you've gone more and more into being some offensive shill than anything else."

Offensive? Are you such a thin-skinned, Nancy-boy that you can't mix it up on an internet forum without getting your feelings hurt? Christ, how many gym classes did you spend locked in your locker? Grow a pair, would you?

"There's been plenty of research that proves you wrong."

Love to see the empirical research on the effects of a law yet to be enacted. Hop in your time machine and fetch it for us.

"All the PIPA is going to do is upset people until its eventual repeal."

I'll wager that it will upset people. Freeloaders, apologists, conspiracy theorists, foreign criminal organizations, Josh the Techdirtbag religious nut who talks about CIA chips implanted in people's heads, Chris-The-Diddler, the tin foil hat wearing Masnick, Marcus the wannabe American and you.
The chances of repeal are zero.... unless you have a meteoric rise in the Pirate Party and wrest control of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Re: Re:

Actually, I do believe in governmental accountability. I also believe that our federal judicial system is without peer in terms of fairness and justice. Christ, the definition of what constitutes a rogue site was largely written by CDT, the bar is set pretty high and the foreign sites are afforded the same protection under Rule 65 as any other federal civil litigant. That's accountability and fairness.

Re: Re: Re:

"He's yet to really address any points brought up so it's not much to say."

What'll be Jay? Due process or First Amendment? You pick.

"Odd that he brings in the Pirate Party just to have something to attack..."

I don't know why bringing up the Pirate Party is odd. It might provide you an outlet to do something other than piss and moan. Unless you're more committed to pissing and moaning than doing something about the situation.

I like the Pirate Party. I had fun filleting some douche from the Executive Council of Pirata awhile back on Ars Technica. He was a self-important windbag like you, so that's what made me think of it. He folded like a $3 umbrella too.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Life, liberty and property.

Are you going to now trot out the false claim that copyright is "property" now too? Must we really debunk such claims yet again? Seriously. Tell whoever is paying you to send someone who can actually discuss stuff logically, rather than someone who trots out the lines that were debunked ages ago.

Re: But the US Constitution says it is property

Awesomesauce. I can use my new BuckShiteralBypass(tm) technique on darryl too, since this "its property because the constitution says its a right!" insane rant is so far detached from reality (and case law, and the law, and the constitution, and ....) that I can just mow all the comments down with "report!" and skip right on by. If I eliminate just these two raving, ranting, frothing-at-the-mouth misrepresenters (is that a word?) of copyright law, then the actual discussion (discussion, not the name-calling and blind promotion of all things "Copyright is the ONLY good!") going on here is actually quite interesting.

This is the most awesome thread ever on TD!

This is great! What a great thread. We have reasoned, rational, well thought out arguments, and then we have Christopher the child molester (and he is on other sites like USAtoday as well, he's well known around the net), a holocaust denier (wrong! I have first-hand proof from direct family that these events happened...so a merry FUCK YOU a-hole!), and Buck Shiteral and his two-faced, hypocritical, change-with-each-argument shrill shilling that is so out there, its basically comedy. I have found a GREAT way to deal with Buck's "viewpoints" - skim the first line, then hit REPORT! This is awesome! I dont have to actually read all his drivel and whining like a little baby-man! AND I get to violate the fist amendment! (that doesnt apply because I AM NOT THE GOVERNMENT AND NEITHER IS TECHDIRT OR ANYONE WHO POSTS HERE. Get a fucking clue how the "freedom of speech" clause works before spouting off about it moron.) Just look for the little blue box and click REPORT - on every post. Its just more efficient and lets me get to the real, valid arguments here instead.

When are you going to start to support your claims ??

but the big question is how difficult is it to explain to the police what tor is, what an exit node is,

Im sure the police, or any other 'authority' would be able to explain computer technology, the internet and its various services to a level that was well over your head mike.

To the point where you would be totally unable to keep up.

Do you honestly believe that police departments, security departments, Governments and so on do not hire the very best and brightest computer science grads and experts they can find ?

Do you honestly believe that a 'lawyer' writing a 'hate blog' who does not practice law and is not computer qualified would have a deeper knowledge of computer science and communications technology that massive IT departments specialising in that field ?

Do you honestly belive that the top 500 super computer are the actual top 500 ?

Or more like 300 to 800, where the top 300 are secret super computers maintained by security agencies, police forces, governments, NSA, DSD, ASIS ASIO, CIA and all them other initials ?

But from all those people and those many thousands of highly trained computer scientists, Mike Masnik know it all and far better.

He understands the law better than the courts, he understands computers better than entire massive departments of computer engineers.

And he knows the US Constitution like he is a professor in constitutional law !!!..

If that is the case, we would have expected better things from you Mike, and not the same ol 'same ol' over and over again, as if you say it enough times it magically becomes true.

I guess its easy to get the un-thinking masses to blindly follow you, and hang on your every word.

But you must find it very difficult to convince anyone who can think for themselves to eat your tripe !

What was the question?

Just want to say that by the time I read all the comments (pink ones too) I forgot what made the article worth reading. The comment section is interesting in that it shows there is more of an emotional reaction than I thought possible. I shall read article again.